Thursday, May 23, 2019 

Tom King reportedly off of Batman, but not out of DC

It looks like King's fallen out of favor to the point they decided to take him off the Masked Manhunter's title well before the 100th issue of the relaunched volume:
Batman writer Tom King will be departing DC’s ongoing Batman series ahead of schedule. King previously shared that his original plan was to tell his Batman story over 105 issues, but IGN has learned from a source with knowledge of the situation that King will be leaving the title by the end of 2019.

However, King still remains under his DC exclusive contract, and the source said King has several new DC projects planned for this year and next that will be revealed in the coming months.
We should hope it's just Vertigo-based stories he's turning to, and not more superhero stories, because Heroes in Crisis already angered more than enough people for the right reasons. There's a suggestion now that DC's backing off what it set up, which hopefully means they're reversing the fate of Roy Harper too, along with any other characters who were unjustly slaughtered for the sake of it. King managed to establish himself as a pariah pretty fast, and no matter how Heroes in Crisis ends, it's  clear DC already alienated more than enough people who aren't going to forgive Dan DiDio for bringing about yet another waste of resources that could've been avoided.

And it's obvious few enjoyed King's take on Batman either. His pointless attacks on Donald Trump were another big problem. People like that don't belong in entertainment.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 

The social justice crowd went after Robert Crumb

The libertarian Reason magazine's May issue wrote a whole article on how today's PC cartooning crowd is rejecting the controversial underground cartoonist Robert Crumb, who'd once been revered by prior generations of counterculture, but is now seemingly shunned by its newest successors:
But events in the comics world last year served notice that the social-justice re-evaluation currently sweeping comedy, film, and literature has arrived at the doorstep of free-thinking comics. In September, at the Small Press Expo's Ignatz Awards ceremony in Bethesda, Maryland, Crumb's successor generation of alt artists let the 75-year-old have it with both barrels.

While presenting the award for Outstanding Artist, the cartoonist Ben Passmore, who is black, asserted that "comics is changing…and it's not an accident." He lamented the continued industry presence of "creeps" and "apologists," then called out the godfather by name: "Shit's not going to change on its own. You gotta keep on being annoying about it.…A while ago someone like R. Crumb would be 'Outstanding.'"

The room erupted with both "ooohs" and booing. "A little while ago there'd be no boos," Passmore responded. "I wouldn't be up here, real talk, and yo—f*** that dude." The crowd burst into applause.

The brief against Crumb is both specific to his famous idiosyncrasies and generally familiar to our modern culture of outrage archeology. His art has trafficked in crude racial and anti-Semitic stereotypes, expressed an open sense of misogyny, and included depictions of incest and rape. Crumb's comics are "seriously problematic because of the pain and harm caused by perpetuating images of racial stereotypes and sexual violence," the Massachusetts Independent Comics Expo (MICE) explained last year when removing Crumb's name from one of its exhibit rooms.
Even if I don't support censorship of arts, I honestly don't find those examples from Crumb's resume funny or appealing. But is that really the reason why a few conventions and some modern cartoonists are throwing him under the bus today? Crumb, as noted in the article, is a veteran liberal, and if he'd been a conservative, I'm sure Reason and other sources would've mentioned it in a heartbeat and run with it. Gary Groth, not a very appealing person himself, offered a clue why this modern rejection of Crumb might not be altruistic at all:
Such talk alarms Gary Groth, co-founder of Fantagraphics, the premiere American publisher of quality adult comics, including a 17-volume series of The Complete Crumb Comics. "The spontaneity and vehemence" of the backlash, Groth says, "surprised me—and I guess what also disheartened me was, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people booing Crumb are not familiar with his work.…This visceral dislike of him has no basis in understanding who Crumb is, his place in comics history, his contribution to the form."

Key to the misunderstanding is Crumb's willingness to probe human darkness, including his own, and his sheer maniacal delight in transgression. (Crumb's own explanation for one of his more notorious incest-related strips was, "I was just being a punk.") The Ignatz Awards crowd, Groth worries, "will not tolerate that kind of expression, and I think that's disturbing. Cartooning has a long history of being transgressive and controversial and pushing boundaries, and now we have a generation very much opposed to that, who want to censure fellow artists from doing work they don't approve of—even though they are able to do what they are doing and want to do precisely because of trailblazing on the part of artists they now abominate."
If the modern generation of alt-cartoonists is producing comics even remotely as crude as what Crumb produced up until about the turn of the century, then obviously, they're no different, and it just suggests a lot of virtue-signaling on their part. Though it's never mentioned, I get the idea those on the left who supposedly find Crumb's work revolting only do so because they're terrified it'll give an idea just how demented and rancid their thinking really is; a mirror reflecting what people on the left could be like. Though Crumb may never have actually specified it was meant to reflect either side, that doesn't mean it couldn't echo what leftists think, and that could be why they believe he should be rejected, because, those who do support perversion now concluded they only do so as long as it's done in private and outside the scope of arts, since they believe reflections in arts will only give an idea what's on their demented minds to anybody researching how liberals think.

But if Crumb had specified his art was meant to reflect conservatives/right-wingers from the get-go, chances the modern left would object would likely be far less. It's not like they aren't producing nasty examples of anti-conservative sentiment in the arts even today.
Crumb blew minds and inspired a generation with his eagerness to portray and explore "the stark reality at the bottom of life," as he put it, delivering "a psychotic manifestation of some grimy part of America's collective unconscious." In pursuit of that goal, he produced many comics, sometimes with reasonably clear comic grotesquerie, sometimes with undeniable—Crumb himself never denied it—truly dark personal expressions that would strike most people now (and many even then) as unacceptably hostile toward women.

Two of his most notorious stories were titled "When the N*****s Take Over America!" and "When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America!" His fans insist they were obvious pitch-black satires of bigoted madness. But they were so outrageous that they were reprinted in actual American Nazi papers. Crumb told The New Yorker in 1994, "I just had to expose all the myths people have of blacks and Jews in the rawest way possible to tilt the scale toward truth."

Trina Robbins, the first female cartoonist in Crumb's San Francisco coterie in the late 1960s and a co-founder of Wimmen's Comix (the longest-running all-woman-made comic series), was the first prominent voice raising feminist objections to how he portrayed women and sex. She says she was written off as an annoying scold by the scene's "little boys club" for noting the violent hostility toward women expressed in some of his work.
Even if the strips about racism were well intentioned, I do think his offensive expressions towards women ruin everything (I have similar problems when some manga books wallow in the same). Come to think of it, if he failed to take any legal action against neo-nazis who exploited his art for their repulsive goals, then what's the use of being in the trade he was?

Maybe the problem with how cartoons like his were used to tackle race issues that they went for a humor angle instead of focusing on the topics from a serious vision. Indeed, why must everything in an underground publication approach these issues as satire? From what I can tell, satire's been used all too often as an excuse for a viewpoint that otherwise fails to accomplish missions successfully. Maybe "drama" would be a better direction?
Defenses of Crumb, who is no longer producing new comics, read as anachronistic to many in our woke age. The Massachusetts Expo's reasoning for shunning Crumb follows an all-too-recognizable one-two formula for casting problematic artists adrift: "We recognize Crumb's singular importance to the development of independent and alternative comics, the influence that he has had on many of our most respected cartoonists, and the quality and brilliance of much of his work," the organizers explained. But! "We also recognize the negative impact carried by some of the imagery and narratives that Crumb has produced, impact felt most acutely by those whose voices have not been historically respected or accommodated."

Passmore did not respond to emailed attempts to interview him for this story. But MICE-like, he seemed to imply that respect for Crumb necessarily means disrespect for black cartoonists—that the racial and gender diversity flourishing in comics today is definitionally opposed to Crumb. As he said at the Ignatz Awards, "I wouldn't be here."
This suggests his reasons for shunning Crumb may be related more to identity politics on race, and not so much because of moral issues involving the rape and incest cartoons the veteran cartoonist illustrated. I've seen examples from Crumb's portfolio here and there over the years (and honestly don't like them), but so far have no idea what cartoonists like the guy from the convention are turning out. And if their stuff is little different from his (could they even stoop to anti-white bias?) in terms of sexually-based stories, then what's the use of panning Crumb's work, whether it was racially offensive or not?

After talking about how things have changed since the 60s, when authorities sometimes arrested people for publishing/selling offensive material, they say:
No one of significance in the comics community today is calling for 1970s-style legal punishment for unwoke cartoonists. Charles Brownstein, who heads up the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, points out that "there's a distinction between censorship in the courts vs. dissenting points of view in the public square."
There are, however, blacklists for right-wingers and various other people who take a position Marvel/DC don't agree with. Something neither Brownstein nor Groth seem particularly interested in dealing with, and that's why truly, they're hypocrites. It's also noted:
But obscenity laws still exist, and that prosecutorial energy has been especially fierce in the past few decades when targeting sexual depictions involving children. One of Zap 4's more offensive strips is an incest riff featuring kids having sex with their parents, so it isn't completely insane to fear that Crumb's work might once again come to be seen as not merely unwoke but illegal. The anti-Crumb sentiments are "still dangerous," Groth says, "because laws can in fact change because of public attitudes." Those attitudes now include mainstream consideration of legislation aimed at curtailing "hate speech."
There's one thing that isn't clear. From what I know, the laws usually prohibit stuff like live-action child pornography, and not necessarily illustrations. Which isn't saying concerns about laws against obscene illustrations aren't unwarranted. Even so, I think that was repellent what Crumb concocted in his cruddy magazine, and "satire" is no excuse.
Portraying darkness and evil in art is not the same as celebrating darkness and evil, even when the depiction is not safely anchored to a clear statement of the artist's anti-evil sympathies. Offense and transgression can be a vital part of how expression stays lively, fresh, startling, moving, and true to the human condition. That transgressive art is hard to defend in sober, sensible ways is precisely the point. As Simpsons creator Matt Groening wrote in an introduction to 1998's The Life and Times of R. Crumb, "it sure is a relief to read someone's beautiful Bad Thoughts and realize the world won't come crashing down after all."
Wow, they cite somebody whose animated sitcom recently caved to the very PC mindsets now going after Crumb. Once, the Simpsons mocked PC. Now, they've capitulated to it. If Groening couldn't stand firm on what his creation was built for, maybe he shouldn't have bothered writing that intro in the book at all.
The teen Crumb in his published letters saw himself as a good liberal condemning the racial ignorance and prejudice of the yokels surrounding him. The adult Crumb, in addition to his transgressions, did some excellent cartooning on the lives of black musicians who had made the old-time music he revered. Building a wall of exclusion around his art denies audiences the galvanizing work of an artist whose declared intent often aligns with that of his modern-day indicters, even if he's willing to toy with imagery they recoil from.
Well, like I said, Crumb's a lefty. But not a good one to the social justice bunch who're turning against him now.
The attitudes Crumb satirized were real and, he thought, deserving of ridicule via crazed exaggeration. His feelings of hostility toward women are, as he has insisted in his comics and in interviews, true to him (and, he is certain, to many other men). What is to be gained by pretending they're not? Crumb was honest about being the sort of resentful nebbish who in his pre-fame days saw women as controlling something he desperately wanted and couldn't have—what would now be called a corrosive "incel" mentality, after the men who self-identify as involuntarily celibate.

In a 1991 interview with The Comics Journal, Crumb said art should be judged not on ideological purity but on whether it is "interesting or boring…honest and truthful and real…saying what's really on [the artists'] minds.…If it's really in there it ought to come out on paper." At the same time, he reflected, "I don't know, maybe we're all just dragging society down. Maybe we should all be locked up."
Okay, then that's what I've done; I judged his art based on merit, taste, or lack thereof. And I think it stinks. Regarding his attitudes towards women, I sure wish somebody would be honest and admit it's possible what he was doing could've been a mindset shared among radical leftists, who now find conveying that into art embarrassing, because it gives an idea what leftist minds could be like. At the end, it says:
Crumb's attempt to open comics to a vast range of human expression was victorious: Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, those working in the field today are his descendants. Like all children and grandchildren, they can choose whether or not to understand their patriarch, whether to emulate him or tell him to f*** off. Their choices may not always be kind or wise, but such is human freedom.
Certainly depending what they draw into their cartoons, they could be his successors, though if they don't deal in perverse ideas like he did, that could be disputable. But, if they do, then the argument's certainly a lot more valid. A notable difference, though, is that today's cartoonists may not be working underground like Crumb's generation did. Though if we're reading the signs correctly, a new underground is bound to be born in defiance of the new SJW movements, and in today's world, the internet serves as a form of underground for art not considered PC.

Anyway, how about that. The same political side who once was fine with Crumb and his crap now allegedly despises it, but probably not for altruistic reasons at all. Only because they're virtue-signaling, or realize his art can serve as a mirror to their twisted minds, and that scares them. One can only wonder how Crumb feels about what's happening today.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 

Saladin Ahmed exploits Stan Lee's past projects for his own leftist agendas

Somebody who sure isn't grateful to the late Lee is now taking advantage of past licensed projects he may or may not have greenlighted to suit his own dark political positions from a modern perspective:



It would appear Ahmed's trying to exploit an unwise move Lee might've made in the 1970s just to suit his own ungrateful agenda. I noticed somebody on the thread saying people who claim Marvel "only recently went woke" didn't read earlier stuff. But as it so happens, I was aware of this for years already, and don't try to pretend it didn't happen, as I did mention a time or two in past posts. And what do I think? Let me be clear. I am sad Lee, if he really did give this project his seal of approval, associated his company with such a disgusting organization founded by Margaret Sanger, a woman who harbored a bias against blacks, which is a slap in the face to the anti-racism positions he advocated in his time. Sure, PP may not have been as extreme in the 70s as they are today, but that doesn't make their past platforms any more tasteful.

Furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to figure Ahmed's not grateful to Stan for anything, and it wouldn't be shocking if people like him just write such drivel in attempts to convince Lee's defenders that their favorite hobbies are "sexist and racist", and should be abandoned to people like him to exploit. Well here's what I have to say: if he thinks this item is going to discourage folks like myself from admiring Lee through all his ups and downs, he's throughly mistaken. Mainly because it's clear he's not doing this out of genuine appreciation for Lee in any category. Furthermore, if you know where to look, there are comics stories out there where pregnancies take place (Liz Allen's son Normie, named after Osborn Jr. in Spider-Man, and Stephanie Brown giving birth in an issue of Robin during the 90s), and usually are looked upon with admiration. Which isn't exactly what Ahmed's doing himself. It's a terrible shame he's exploiting a now deceased guy's archives to suit his own agenda, rather than just make the case himself in his own words.

Anyway, Ahmed posted more tweets supporting abortion:




Yeah, "safe, legal". Keep going, please. And, he has more to say about elections:


He clearly doesn't think liberals ever worked in front of or behind the scenes to enshrine their own agendas at the expense of cohesion, and his anti-conservative bias is predictably galling.

What makes him so obsessed with supporting abortion? It's amazing he hasn't gotten around exploiting Simone Veil's pushing for legalizing abortion in France during the time Valery Giscard d'Estaing was president in the 70s. Something I thought was atrocious in the extreme. He even posted the following:

And here, he's acting like everybody thinks white supremacy is a thing of the past. A man who already attacked Jewish Stan Lee's Israeli counterparts, which includes Gal Gadot, and doesn't seem particularly worried about Jews/Israelis falling victim to them, as tragically occurred of recent in Pittsburgh and San Diego's Poway district. And he's exploiting those cases he has just to pretend Islamofascism's not a major issue, even though it still reigns supreme in many places. It's a disgrace C.B. Cebulski continues to let him write anything for Marvel, but of course, let's not forget Sana Amanat likely also plays a part in making sure Ahmed still gets any jobs with them.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 20, 2019 

Wash. Post fawns over Devil's Due comic about Ocasio-Cortez

The Washington Post sugarcoated the Ocasio-Cortez comic which Devil's Due Publishing came up with, but does reveal some of the contributors who'll be writing for this lefty project. First:
“Not only has Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shown to be an inspirational figure,” Blaylock said. “She’s also taking on some pretty herculean goals and going up against major institutions — not unlike several comic-book heroes of the past.”
Considering she's part and parcel of major institutions, like the leftist establishment, and even angered some liberals too, I don't see his point.
Since the dawn of superhero comics, such costumed fighters as Superman (who took on a corrupt senator in 1938′s Action Comics No. 1) and Captain America (who punched Nazis in his ’40s debut cover) have been blatantly political.
This sounds like just another effort to "prove" comics were always more political than adventurous and entertaining. And all from clowns who never respected Kirby/Simon, or had any complaints about the sickening angle used in the Secret Empire crossover at least 2 years ago.
Even real-life leaders have had their moments. Such presidents as Richard Nixon and Barack Obama have been depicted in superhero/action comic books, including “Barack the Barbarian,” which Blaylock published a decade ago.
How interesting they mention Tricky Dicky may have been presented positively in their past political projects, if he was, given he too was no saint, since he supported abortions for mixed race infants.
Blaylock’s new title boasts some veteran writers and artists, including the Eisner Award-winning Jill Thompson, Tim Seeley, Marguerite Dabaie and the Emmy Award-winning Dean Haspiel, who, alongside illustrator Christa Cassano (“Ghetto Klown”), created the comic “Make America Empathetic Again” — in which a superheroic Ocasio-Cortez quotes “Watchmen” and shaves Trump’s pate, rendering him free, “unencumbered by fear, hate and . . . hair.”

“AOC is one of us,” the New York-based Haspiel said, of the congresswoman’s appeal among some of his colleagues. “She slung coffee, digs comic books and isn’t afraid to dance.”
So, those are the pretentious people recruited for writing and drawing the stories in this mishmash. Including Seeley, who came up with apologia for Islam some time ago. Needless to say, the other story they speak of sounds disgusting in the extreme; nothing more than another example of poor taste built on partisan politics, which we could use far less of at this point.

Shortly after this news came about, interestingly enough, DC sent a cease-and-desist announcement to Devil's Due, because they didn't approve of drawing a costume for Ocasio-Cortez that looked very similar to Wonder Woman's costume:
But DC Comics, which owns the rights to the Wonder Woman comic-book character, apparently doesn’t appreciate that a rival publisher has depicted the congresswoman in an outfit similar to that of DC’s famous crime-fighter creation.

According to reports, DC Comics has filed a cease-and-desist order against Devil’s Due, the company behind a new comic book titled, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & The Freedom Force: New Party, Who Dis?”
So, does that mean the official cover that was already issued won't be put to use, or, if the outfit's already in the story proper, the book won't go to press at all? I won't feel sorry for Blaylock's business if irony winds up grinding their "fun" to a halt. And all because of a company whose present executives have politics no different than theirs.

It's a shame some publishers won't show they have what it takes to avoid gross examples of blatant leftist politics. That obsessiveness is only making them look bad.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, May 18, 2019 

Capt. Marvel movie's Skrull metaphor for illegal immigration injected into comics proper

It looks like Marvel's wasted no time forcing the political metaphor in the overrated Captain Marvel movie into the comics universe proper, in a book connected with War of the Realms:
The Skrulls have been around in Marvel Comics for years, but were just recently brought into the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Captain Marvel. However, these were not the evil, power hungry, want-to-take-over-the-world Skrulls that fans know and love from the comic books.

The MCU version were actually peace-seeking Skrulls who just wanted safe refuge from their cosmic enemies. But in The War of the Realms: Journey Into Mystery comic miniseries, some of Marvel's superheroes have stumbled upon a similar re-imagining within the comic universe: a group of Skrulls that just want to live their lives in peace on Earth. Of course... they're still willing to kill for it.
The Skrulls may have gotten a dreadful start on the silver screen. Now, they're getting what sounds like an equally dreadful retcon and continuation from a movie's theme back in the comics, and that they're still willing to use deadly force doesn't necessarily change it. All for the sake of blatant political metaphors which have become a sad staple over the past decade or so, and a crossover continuing the now tiresome custom of taking up too much space in every possible book in a shared universe. If this is how the Marvel's going to look from now on, they won't even have many supervillains left to challenge the superheroes. Then again, that's pretty much become the case, surely ever since Civil War in the late 2000s. It hasn't been about fighting actual villains in Marvel for years.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, May 17, 2019 

Jonathan Hickman's relaunching X-Men does nothing to improve the franchise

Writer Hickman comes back to Marvel to serve as main writer for the X-books, and their idea of how to start off his bound-to-be-overrated era is to embody a now classic business cliche: relaunch the books from more Number Ones, beginning with 2 miniseries:
This summer, everything will change for the X-Men when Jonathan Hickman makes his return to Marvel Comics. Hickman's Marvel work includes acclaimed runs on Fantastic Four and Avengers. That work built to its multiverse-shattering climax in Marvel's 2015 event series Secret Wars.

In July, Hickman returns with his sights set on Marvel’s mutants. Marvel has teased Hickman’s X-Men as the biggest milestone for the franchise since Grant Morrison's New X-Men in the early 2000s. It begins with House of X and Powers of X, two six-issue miniseries. Based on our interview with Hickman, these miniseries set up a bold new era that will redefine the X-Men for years to come.
Everything already changed. For the worse. Morrison's run was not a milestone either. And the books were already redefined. This is only repeat-broadcast town they've traveled to. Hickman continued in the interview to explain his reasons for relaunches:
Did you always want to introduce this next era for the X-Men with House of X and Powers of X? How did this idea start for you?

JH: Okay, so, for the most part, I don't believe incrementalism works in fictional universes, and that, I think, is why almost every big franchise change that occurs has a delineated starting point. I mean, it does work, which is why the industry often abuses it as a sales tactic.

And in the spirit of 'what works' and also 'what the market is used to', I didn't feel like just doing a new number one was enough. I also didn't think that if we were serious about what we were trying to do we should have a mixed message in the market about what an X-book is.

So I argued for cancelling the entire line: Why it would work, why it was a good idea, and most importantly, why it was what we needed to do narratively to return the X-Men to their rightful prominent position
in the Marvel Universe.

We needed to sell the idea that this is what we're going to be doing for the next few years. So if you want to read X-Men books during the run from late-July through September, House of X and Powers of X are the only new X-books available and everything that's going to follow is based on them. We wanted to be clear to the fans, to the stores, and just as importantly, to the creators who are going to be staffing these books in the future. We wanted the message to be very clear: This is a whole new era for the X-Men. This is what we're doing now.

And so, POX and HOX is how we're starting. It's a solid plan, I think.
Granted, there are/have been too many X-books as it is, particularly since the mid-90s, when X-Man and Mutant X were launched. So I do admit just 2 books is at least better than 20-plus. But relaunching everything at Numero Uno is still a laughable cliche, when here, all they had to do was just cancel the majority of spinoff titles, and keep at least one flagship around at numbering it already had, and maybe keep Wolverine's solo and another solo or two. That's all they needed to do, not relaunch everything, and not with a miniseries title that sounds reminiscent of Brian Bendis's House of M crossover that only misused Scarlet Witch for a silly direction based on reducing the number of mutants on the globe. Speaking of which, here's what Hickman says about his miniseries:
One, House of X, is a story about a pivotal month in the history of the X-men where everything changes for mutants on Earth. And the other, Powers of X, is a story about the history of mutants in the Marvel Universe. It works as a series of reveals and revelations where each issue of HOX that follows POX -- and vice versa -- makes you reinterpret the issue you had previously read.
That sounds awfully reminiscent of House of M. It also sounds like a lot of confusion will ensue. What's the use of that? And then, here's another big joke making me wonder why at this point, they're canning a whole line:
While we know you can’t share too much, can you share any details around this new direction of what’s happening in the X-Universe? Are there plans after House of X and Powers of X?

JH: At the conclusion of our 12 weeks of HOX and POX, we'll be launching an entire new universe of X-books. Some will be traditional fare, some carry through on ideas presented in HOX and POX. Some books are completely new concepts. I, personally, will be writing the ongoing flagship X-book.

Now, we're already in production on all of these 'Wave 1' books and our plan at this moment is to introduce the titles, creative teams, and publishing details around SDCC, which is a week before HOX #1 goes on sale.
Oh good grief. So what was all that talk before about canceling the whole line of X-books? At the end of these miniseries they've planned, they'll just be boomeranging back to the usual routine, with over a dozen books on the market, most bound to be 4 dollars, and even if they're self-contained - which I honestly doubt since crossovers like War of the Realms are still being churned out - they'll be awfully expensive for newcomers who might find the whole in a trade better than the sum of parts. If these were just a handful of miniseries, it might be acceptable, but with so many flooding the market, as he implies, it comes off sounding like more of the same excuses for fleecing the audience, goading them into buying too many new items all over again.

Still, if there's anything I do hope Hickman's willing to do, it's to abandon the retcon to Iceman-as-homosexual, which was disrespectful of creators Lee/Kirby's original development that wasn't built on such politicization. If they do drop that SJW angle, that'll at least be one good thing done with the franchise. In fact, if DC were to abandon their own forced, similar retcon to Obsidian from Infinity Inc, they'd be making improvements there too. Even so, what Marvel's doing so far is hardly the best way to build confidence.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, May 16, 2019 

Stan Lee's former business manager charged with elderly abuse

It's been several months since Lee sadly passed on, but his last official business manager, Keya Morgan, is now in trouble with the law for committing elderly abuse and fleecing money:
Stan Lee is sadly gone, but the Marvel icon is far from forgotten, especially in the L.A. County District Attorney’s office.

Jackie Lacey’s crew has hit the Spider-Man and Avengers co-creator’s former business manager with elder abuse charges. Keya Morgan is facing one felony count of false imprisonment of an elder adult, three felony counts of theft, embezzlement, and forgery or fraud against an elder adult, along with an initial elder abuse misdemeanor count.

Morgan took control of Lee’s business affairs and personal life in February 2018 and allegedly isolated the Black Panther co-creator, who died on November 12 last year, from family and friends. Morgan also embezzled or misappropriated $5 million of assets, according to documents filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2018.

The deceased Lee had assets of more than $50 million in the last years of his life.

The five counts of elder abuse filed May 10 of this year could see Morgan behind bars for up to a decade if found guilty. An arrest warrant has been issued for the ex-memorabilia dealer.
So Morgan really was a horrible lot, and after this scandal, nobody should buy memorabilia from him ever again; hence, he's an ex-dealer. Why, what if any memorabilia he's got in store was stolen from Lee's estate? I hope he's arrested or turns himself in to authorities ASAP, because he may have been responsible for precipitating Lee's demise by causing him depression and frustation. And I'm convinced Lee's daughter did nothing wrong as one prior report I read alleged. In hindsight, it's shocking how Stan the Man fell victim in the last decade or so of his life to creeps who exploited him and tried to rob him of money, all because they must've seen in him a vulnerable old man easy to take advantage of. And those who exploited him include quite a few of Marvel's own modern staff too, clearly confident he'd never be critical of anything bad they did to the treasures he'd developed, with one of their worst examples being Secret Empire.

Lee was lucky he managed to get an injunction against Morgan, and then spend the last few months of his life more comfortably, in the company of daughter and other pals. If Morgan's smart, he'll take accountability and return any funds he stole from Lee's savings to his estate. It's a terrible shame how a pop culture icon got taken advantage of to such an alarming degree.

Labels: ,

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile

Archives

Links

  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • GoStats charts
  • W3 Counter stats
  • Click here to see website statistics
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs
    View My Stats Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page Find out where your visitors come from with GoStats.  
    AmazingCounters.com

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.